slightly OT, but still connected

How can you claim to be a scientist yet believe in a theory which is
directly contradicted by the available evidence?


Tim, he won't accept your evidence since it's from man.

-Florian

What is odd is that there is a story of a Shik who to save his kingdom built
a large boat and loaded everyone into it and road out the flood that wiped
out his kingdom, and this PREdates Noa's flood by 500+ years and takes place
not far from the same area.

Funny how there is no record of shuch birds, etc. from the N.A./S.A. land
mass either.


"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:35:37 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:


Is it true that Satan put dinosaur bones on Earth to confuse people
or did the Ark have two T-rex's, two Brontosaurae, etc?
-Rich

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:48:07 -0700, "Starlord"
wrote:

What is odd is that there is a story of a Shik who to save his kingdom built
a large boat and loaded everyone into it and road out the flood that wiped
out his kingdom, and this PREdates Noa's flood by 500+ years and takes place
not far from the same area.

I don't think anyone can reliably date an ancient flood to within 500
years, and virtually every story we have today from thousands of years
ago comes from about the same area. It is reasonable to assume that
flood stories from different cultures, at similar times and locations,
might be based on the same event. And the idea of building a big boat
isn't much of a stretch for independent invention (or, the oral
traditions of the ancient cultures may have overlapped).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

I'm responding to this one on-line, but it's a bit long and probably
primarily of interest to Christians :-/ Sorry in advance, and feel free
to flame me (a little), but please do so privately if you can to avoid
too high a noise level here....

"Clayton" == Clayton Doyles writes:

If you're trying to say we (humans) need to be a bit more humble
about what we think we know, I'll buy that.

Clayton We as humans should be a LOT more humble, yes.

But if you're trying to say we don't truly know anything, you've
lost me.

Clayton We know a few things, but to God, although we were created
Clayton in His own image, our intelligence when compared to Him is
Clayton like that of an amoeba.

You are skirting *very* shaky ground theologically. Theologians accept
as an axiom that our knowledge is incomplete and imperfect (hmmm, sounds
a lot like reasonable science, that), but they also accept that we can
know *truly* as well. You're comparison is either in conflict with that
or it is meaningless. Tell me know much an amoeba knows truly wrt to
God.

I reject the apparent age hypothesis, which is the only one which can
both explain the apparent age of the universe and a "real" age of
c.6,000 years. I am of the opinion that it turns God into a deceiver
and I certainly reject that.

I find most of these arguments come from what I think is a too limited
view of God or a very strange interpretation of the Bible. The Bible
does *not* claim the world/universe is 6,000 years old. It makes no
claim for it's age. Bishop Usher inferred it from adding up
geneological ages. Ironically, some of those geneologies are almost
certainly "in error" by modern accounting---they were not intended to be
literal geneologies accounting for every ancestor in the tree, but had
symbolic or numerological significance, often to show "perfection" in
some count. Whether you agree with that or not, Usher's chronological
*is* extra-biblical and I find those would imbue it with canonical
weight to be in grave danger spiritually---what else will be given
canonical weight which is also extra-biblical?

I think that every Christian should see that the God-given evidence
presented in the universe (creation) itself testifies that the universe
is bigger and older than anything we could have thought or imagined.
The underlying symmetries of physical laws that govern the physical
universe speak to me of a God who is "not the author of chaos but of
order."

Alan Guth speaks of "eternal inflation" to try to wipe away the need for
a specific beginning to the universe---the observable universe had a
beginning, but the inflation that sparked our cosmic bubble continues
elsewhere, just outside the limits of visbility. I happen to think that
that is not science anymore---it is intrinsically unobservable. But
that sounds to me a lot like a religious metaphor for intrinsically
unknowable things in the universe, a lot like the Christian
theologically position that God is knowable truly, but not completely.

While I have found the commentaries of many people, sciencists and
non-scientists alike, disturbing wrt their interpretation of the
theological implications of this or that new discovery, I have yet to
see a new finding which actually challenges Biblical claims. Too many
"defenses" by Christians against science are misdirected defenses
against the interpretation or claims of commentators.

20+ years ago when I was still doing "real" physics, we measured the
sub-barrier transfer reaction cross sections. What where the
theological implications? None that I can see. That's most of
science. When we measured the cross section of lithium break-up on gold
and carbon targets, what were the theological implications? None that I
can see (but it did have implications for big-bang nucleosynthesis).

In what was perhaps a subconscience act of reliving a bit of my youth, I
wore the silly T-shirt with Maxwell's equations today; the one that says
"In the beginning God said ...[equations]... and there was light." Some
seem to take that as being a bit sacreligious. I don't see it that way.
Either God said that, or something (currently) indistinguishably close
to it, or else you have to conclude that light does not propagate by the
laws that God laid down for it. In other words, if you are a Christian,
you need to get a little more comfortable with science as man's
exploration of the universe God created.

regards,

roland
--
PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
Roland B. Roberts, PhD RL Enterprises
6818 Madeline Court
Brooklyn, NY 11220

"Chris" == Chris L Peterson writes:

Chris On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:11:08 GMT, "Clayton Doyles"
Chris wrote:

There is no such thing as a "Creationist physicist", so there is
no issue here.

I don't fathom how you can make a statement like that. I am such
a person, have been all of my life.

Chris I wouldn't call you a physicist if you believe in biblical
Chris creation. To me, "physicist" and "scientist" aren't titles
Chris found on a business card; they describe a way of
Chris thinking. That way of thinking is incompatible with belief in
Chris something like biblical creation.

Uhm, Chris, it is incompatible with a particular interpretation of the
biblical creation account. It's a nit, but one I have to pick.

regards,

roland
--
PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
Roland B. Roberts, PhD RL Enterprises
6818 Madeline Court
Brooklyn, NY 11220

"Chris" == Chris L Peterson writes:

Chris On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:40:36 -0400, Michael McCulloch
Chris wrote:

There is a recent idea supported by evidence that the Noah's flood
myth may be based in real flood event in the area currently covered by
the Black Sea. The theory proposes that a natural dam failed and
allowed the Mediterranean Sea to flood a large area of inhabited land.

[...]

Chris I think it is very likely that many Old Testament stories
Chris have their roots in actual events. Finding correlates between
Chris events in ancient literature (which often retell stories from
Chris even more ancient, pre-literate cultures) and physical
Chris evidence is a fruitful area of research for many
Chris archaeologists.

Most all of the post-Abraham events are, from an archeological
perspective, on pretty good footing, so I think you can probaby concede
a bit more here without having anyone accuse you of suddenly turning
soft on religion bg.

regards,

roland
--
PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
Roland B. Roberts, PhD RL Enterprises
6818 Madeline Court
Brooklyn, NY 11220

"Roland Roberts" wrote in message
...
I'm responding to this one on-line, but it's a bit long and probably
primarily of interest to Christians :-/ Sorry in advance, and feel free
to flame me (a little), but please do so privately if you can to avoid
too high a noise level here....

Roland, to be honest, I thought many more would have *plonked* this
discussion long ago. I continue to be somewhat surprised by the responses I
keep seeing, especially considering that this is a saa group.

"Clayton" == Clayton Doyles writes:

If you're trying to say we (humans) need to be a bit more humble
about what we think we know, I'll buy that.

Clayton We as humans should be a LOT more humble, yes.

But if you're trying to say we don't truly know anything, you've
lost me.

Clayton We know a few things, but to God, although we were created
Clayton in His own image, our intelligence when compared to Him is
Clayton like that of an amoeba.

You are skirting *very* shaky ground theologically. Theologians accept
as an axiom that our knowledge is incomplete and imperfect (hmmm, sounds
a lot like reasonable science, that), but they also accept that we can
know *truly* as well. You're comparison is either in conflict with that
or it is meaningless. Tell me know much an amoeba knows truly wrt to
God.

I reject the apparent age hypothesis, which is the only one which can
both explain the apparent age of the universe and a "real" age of
c.6,000 years. I am of the opinion that it turns God into a deceiver
and I certainly reject that.

You're entitled to reject it if you want to. That's on the benefits of
having free will and I certainly won't be judging you for it.

I find most of these arguments come from what I think is a too limited
view of God or a very strange interpretation of the Bible. The Bible
does *not* claim the world/universe is 6,000 years old. It makes no
claim for it's age. Bishop Usher inferred it from adding up
geneological ages. Ironically, some of those geneologies are almost
certainly "in error" by modern accounting---they were not intended to be
literal geneologies accounting for every ancestor in the tree, but had
symbolic or numerological significance, often to show "perfection" in
some count. Whether you agree with that or not, Usher's chronological
*is* extra-biblical and I find those would imbue it with canonical
weight to be in grave danger spiritually---what else will be given
canonical weight which is also extra-biblical?

Well, I must admit, you're right, 6000 years definitely isn't spelled out in
the Bible. And if you're saying that man shouldn't add to the Bible, you're
quite correct. In fact, it is stated somewhere in the Bible not to add or
subtract from it.

I think that every Christian should see that the God-given evidence
presented in the universe (creation) itself testifies that the universe
is bigger and older than anything we could have thought or imagined.

When you put it that way, perhaps.....

The underlying symmetries of physical laws that govern the physical
universe speak to me of a God who is "not the author of chaos but of
order."

Ok, I can agree. Perfect revolutions, rotations, stellar orbits, etc.

Alan Guth speaks of "eternal inflation" to try to wipe away the need for
a specific beginning to the universe---the observable universe had a
beginning, but the inflation that sparked our cosmic bubble continues
elsewhere, just outside the limits of visbility. I happen to think that
that is not science anymore---it is intrinsically unobservable.

Outside of the known universe and not prone to our physical laws? I could
agree with that.

But
that sounds to me a lot like a religious metaphor for intrinsically
unknowable things in the universe, a lot like the Christian
theologically position that God is knowable truly, but not completely.

My own belief is that we'll never know Him completely as long as we exist as
we do. I was trying to show an example of when we might know Him better
with the amoeba=man example earlier but that was in response to someone
else.

While I have found the commentaries of many people, sciencists and
non-scientists alike, disturbing wrt their interpretation of the
theological implications of this or that new discovery, I have yet to
see a new finding which actually challenges Biblical claims. Too many
"defenses" by Christians against science are misdirected defenses
against the interpretation or claims of commentators.

The one thing that bothers me the most about a scientist is one who flat out
says that God does not exist. As long as they're willing to concede the
possibility of His existence, I try not to be defensive. I believe to most
Christians, this is what it comes down to essentially.

20+ years ago when I was still doing "real" physics, we measured the
sub-barrier transfer reaction cross sections.

Now, your PHD is ahead of me here . I have an idea what your talking
about, but you'd have to explain further.

What where the
theological implications? None that I can see. That's most of
science. When we measured the cross section of lithium break-up on gold
and carbon targets, what were the theological implications? None that I
can see (but it did have implications for big-bang nucleosynthesis).

In what was perhaps a subconscience act of reliving a bit of my youth, I
wore the silly T-shirt with Maxwell's equations today; the one that says
"In the beginning God said ...[equations]... and there was light." Some
seem to take that as being a bit sacreligious. I don't see it that way.

Yes, they could do that. We've had similar events in my workplace, but I've
never said anything because, for our universe, there definitely are
equations even though the Almighty didn't spell them out.

Either God said that, or something (currently) indistinguishably close
to it, or else you have to conclude that light does not propagate by the
laws that God laid down for it. In other words, if you are a Christian,
you need to get a little more comfortable with science as man's
exploration of the universe God created.

I can buy that. I have to say, I think you've made a lot more sense trying
to tie the two philosophies together than a lot of the other posters here
including myself initially. You've definitely given me some things to think
about and without rejecting God.

Clay

regards,

roland
--
PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
Roland B. Roberts, PhD RL Enterprises
6818 Madeline Court
Brooklyn, NY 11220

Chris L Peterson wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:09:45 -0400, Roland Roberts
wrote:

I have problems with the phrase "literal interpretation of ... the
Bible" in general...

Well, without getting into a long discussion about Biblical
interpretation, I think it is fair to say (in the context of this
debate) that we are talking mainly about the literal interpretation of
simple, physical, scientifically verifiable things that appear not to be
intended as poetry or allegory. This includes things such as the age of
the Earth, the manner of creation of the Earth, the manner of creation
of Man, events such as the Biblical plagues and Noah's flood.

These are things that, if taken literally as presented in the Bible (as
is common with fundamental Christians in the United States), are at odds
with scientific knowledge. That is the sort of gross dichotomy I'm
talking about- nothing subtle!

And to be clear again, what I'm discussing has nothing to do in general
with the relationship between science and religion, and everything to do
with specific items presented as "fact" or "truth" by some religious
practitioners and which are scientifically unsound.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

The Book Of Genesis took centuries to reach its final form.

The Bible is not just a collection of books,it is organised like a
library .

The Word is peculariar to ONE book alone,the Johannine community's
soaring conception of Christ and Christianity.

Now,the authors of these Judaeo- Christian works took extraordinary
steps to protect their texts from cretins like empiricists and
creationists or indeed any variations arising from people who are
either too speculative or too dominant such as the gnostics or
denominational Christianity.

Reviewing what presents itself as science vs religion is just a
sickening dumbing down of not only the investigation of natural
phenomena and the magnificence of life but that investigation as a
facet of faith.We cannot describe God because of the complexity of
things yet we understand God in simplicity,the great memorial of
Pascal captures the insight when the veil is lifted and we see thing
as they truly are with a new set of eyes.






"GOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob
not of the philosophers and of the learned.
Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace."

http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/pascal.html

Ok, I can agree. Perfect revolutions, rotations, stellar orbits, etc.


Clayton, how would you define an _imperfect_ revolution, rotation or =
stellar orbit?

-Florian

Ï "Florian" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...

Ok, I can agree. Perfect revolutions, rotations, stellar orbits, etc.


Clayton, how would you define an _imperfect_ revolution, rotation or
stellar orbit?

About 10 years ago, when Pascal was the more popular programming language, I
came upon an n-body simulation algorithm, which had n celestial bodies
placed on a 2-dimentional grid, with varying masses and the user launched a
projectile using the mouse trying to put it into orbit around the main more
massive body. I was able to put the projectile in orbit in something like
1-2% of the cases by trial and error. The rest of the times the projectile
would either immediatelly crash on one of the bodies or would *eventually*
crash, after a number of revolutions, sometimes going into what seemed like
a good orbit, but eventually failing. And even when the projectile would go
into what seemed a "stable" orbit, I had no way to tell if the orbit was
*eventually* stable, as it could well fail after I interrupted the program.

-Florian
--
I. N. Galidakis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
Eventually, _everything_ is understandable